diagnose-integration-failure

name	diagnose-integration-failure
description	Diagnose a failing TMDb integration-test run — summarise the failure, rank the likely cause, and suggest a concrete fix

Diagnose an integration-test failure

The TMDb integration tests hit the live TMDb API. The suite runs on three triggers — pull_request / push (where it gates the change) and schedule (the nightly live-API canary). Which run failed flips the most likely cause, so determine the trigger first (step 0):

• PR / push-triggered → this run is the gate for a code change, so a regression in the diff is a real candidate — weigh it alongside backend/data drift. This is the common case when invoked from /watch-pr or /fix-pr-checks.
• Scheduled → no code changed, so a regression is unlikely; the cause is almost certainly a backend change, drifted test data, or a transient error.

Wrong suite? If a CI check failed instead (lint, markdown, build, or unit tests from ci.yml), use /diagnose-ci-failure. That one leads with the opposite assumption: a CI failure is almost always caused by the change under review.

Produce a concise markdown analysis with exactly these three sections:

Summary: one or two sentences on what failed — name the failing suite/test where visible.

Likely cause: the most probable root cause, ranked most-likely first — ranked by the trigger (step 0):

• If PR / push-triggered, add as a top candidate: 0. A regression in the changed code — read the diff (git diff main...HEAD). A new/renamed request path or query item, a changed model/CodingKeys, or a decoder tweak can break a live call. This run is the gate, so the diff is a prime suspect — but still weigh causes 1–3 below, since the live API can drift independently of your change.
• If scheduled, do NOT lead with "a code bug" (nothing changed); go straight to 1–3.

1. A TMDb backend change — a response field was added, removed, renamed, or became nullable, breaking a model's Decodable. Confirm against the OpenAPI spec (see step 3).
2. Stale assumed data in an integration test — the test asserts a specific live value (a title, count, id, date, or ordering) that the API now returns differently. The code is fine; the test's baseline has drifted.
3. A transient API error, rate limiting (HTTP 429), or a timeout — the Integration Test job has a 30-minute timeout-minutes, and a cancelled (timed-out) run still surfaces as a workflow failure. A truncated log with no assertion failure, or a run that ran the full 30 minutes, points here.

Cite the specific HTTP status codes, error messages, or failing assertions from the log that point to your conclusion.

Suggested fix: the concrete next step — which Swift model or JSON fixture to update for an API change, which integration-test assertion to relax or refresh for drifted data, or (only for case 3) re-run the job / wait out rate limiting / investigate the slow run if it timed out.

Keep it under ~150 words.

Steps

0. Determine the trigger (it sets the cause ranking above). If the caller told you (e.g. /watch-pr / /fix-pr-checks diagnose a PR run), use that. Otherwise read it from the run with mcp__github__actions_get method get_workflow_run (owner/repo from the origin remote, resource_id: <id>) → event is pull_request, push, or schedule (headless / no MCP: gh run view <id> --json event,displayTitle). If you can't tell, assume PR/push when a local diff vs main exists, else scheduled.

1. Locate the failure log, in this order — use the first that exists:

   • A path the caller handed you (e.g. failure-log.txt in the working directory, used by the CI alert workflow).
   • .build/last-integration-test.log — written by the /integration-test skill. If you (or the user) haven't run the tests yet locally, run /integration-test first, then read this log.
   • Otherwise, find the failing run with the GitHub MCP (owner/repo from origin): mcp__github__actions_list method list_workflow_runs (resource_id: integration.yml, workflow_runs_filter: { status: completed }, then filter to conclusion == "failure"), and read its log with mcp__github__get_job_logs (run_id: <id>, failed_only: true, return_content: true). Headless / no MCP: gh run list --workflow Integration --status failure --limit 1 then gh run view <id> --log-failed.

2. Read the failing portion — focus on the assertion failures and error messages, which surface near the end. Read the specific test, model, and fixture files the log points to so your suggested fix names real symbols.

3. Check the OpenAPI spec when the failure looks like a decode/shape error. The live spec is the source of truth for the current response shape, but it is ~3 MB of minified JSON on a single line — NEVER grep, cat, or Read it whole; that dumps the entire file into context. Extract only the one endpoint you need with jq (requires jq, which is present in CI and installable via Homebrew locally; if jq is unavailable, skip this step and say so):

   • Use tmdb-openapi.json in the working directory if present; otherwise fetch it (best-effort): curl -fsSL --max-time 30 https://developer.themoviedb.org/openapi/tmdb-api.json -o tmdb-openapi.json
   • The spec is OpenAPI 3.1 with response schemas inlined per endpoint (there is no reusable components.schemas). Find the endpoint, then pull just its 200-response schema:
     • List endpoints (cheap, ~5 KB): jq -r '.paths | keys[]' tmdb-openapi.json
     • Pull one schema (~5 KB): jq '.paths."/3/movie/{movie_id}".get.responses."200".content."application/json".schema' tmdb-openapi.json (swap in the path + HTTP method for the failing request)
     • Even cheaper, just the field names: … .schema.properties | keys[]
   • Compare the live schema against the failing model/fixture to confirm whether a field changed, became nullable, or was removed — then point at the specific Swift model or JSON fixture that needs updating.
   • If the spec can't be fetched or jq is unavailable, say so and proceed without it.

4. Output the analysis. If the caller asked you to write it to a file (e.g. claude-analysis.md), write the three-section markdown there and nothing else. Otherwise present it directly in your reply.